User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6055 seconds
51 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
On another note, I find all of the banter about the polling of "independents" to be pretty funny. You guys are aware that Independent does not necessarily mean "in the middle of Democrats and Republicans" I hope. There was a bit of a movement of "Independents" away from the GOP to the right. Something about tea, I think.
Well, I think "moderate/liberal" means something different to a registered Republican than it does to a Democrat or true independent. Ron Paul got the most votes by moderate/liberals followed very distantly by Romney.
As for changing your ID it isn't hard at all. I believe nowadays you can do it on the internet for most states.
Popular Vote: Obama 50, Romney 49, scattered 1
EC: Obama 297, Romney 241
Senate: Dem 50, Rep 48, Ind caucasing w Dems 2
House: Reps 239, Dems 196
From this site.
It makes a strong case for how Romney can lead substantially with Independents but still lose the race.
From the linked letter, "In the new plan, only Catholic people can be treated by Catholic institutions." Hey, if you can't beat 'em, lie your ass off.
Because if that doesn't say, 'Vote Republican', what possibly could?
And from CNN Exit Polls, in 2012, 31% of Republican primary voters in Ohio considered themselves Democrats or Independents and 34% considered themselves moderate or liberal. In 2008, only 20% of Republican primary voters considered themselves Democrats or Independents (the % moderate or liberal was the same, 34%).
In 20 years being opposed to same-sex marriage will be on the same level as being anti-miscegenation. Will the Pope just have a "revelation" that God's OK with gays or what?
Is thuggery a a tactic of winning campaigns? Would seem more like a sign of desperation, but judge for yourself: Toledo Union Officials Caught Stealing Romney Signs.
No that is just a tactic of unions. Doesn't say anything about the campaign.
I feel like there are going to be a lot of stories about low-level election shenanigans on Tuesday.
Clearly an Obamunist plant. Shame! Shame!
A lot of stories that get ignored, and a few stories about two scary negroes in ninja costumes scaring decent white folks from voting.
(the comments are gold)
I don't know, but without an organized Rush Limbaugh-style "Operation Chaos," it's hard to imagine this was happening on a widespread basis in places with closed or semi-closed primaries such as Florida and N.C. (Ohio, obviously, is different.)
In TFA, among LV, NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist has Obama up by 6% in Ohio, and by 2% in Florida.
Woohoo!!
From 1896 to 1992 there were 25 presidential elections. How many were really close?
1896-1900 were moderately close, 5% popular vote. 1904, 1908, not close. 1912 the R vote was split, but it really wasn't a close election. 1916 was close. From 1920 to 1956, 10 elections, only 1948 was close, and Truman still won pop. vote by 5%. Then close in 1960, blowout 1964, close 1968, blowout 1972, close 1976. 1980 wasn't very close, ditto 1984 and 1988. Really since 1992 has been a relatively close period, but before that close elections were more the exception than the norm.
WWII does happen though, after a confederate artillery sargent writes a book, and takes over the csa. Ends with "negro" concentration camps and Richmond, VA getting nuked.
I was going to make up a fake one and insert it in there, but couldn't come up with anything as good as the real ones.
That surprised me too. I certainly don't have one.
Romney is probably ahead even at BBTF, once you get rid of the sock puppets.
Ha ha. Maybe we need UnskewedBBTF.com.
It's ######## just like this that has made the Philippines a hell-hole when it comes to women's health.
Sorry to step out on the discussion yesterday. I was reminded I have a job. Dammit.
Of course, that's only a difference of a percentage point or two in expectation, and on top of that the polls could be wrong. Making a big deal of a single poll is dumb, but so is making a big deal of a single day of polling. Barring anything weird, we're probably locked in on the polling of this election. The question that remains is whether the electorate was well polled or not.
And just as hard to turn away from.
Yep. I'm just glad I have plenty to keep me busy until Tuesday. Any word about the election in Jersey? What happens if they push it back a couple of days? The rest of the country votes and seals the results until Jersey votes?
I don't think so as both states are going for Obama. I'm just wondering if the results of the election will be delayed.
I suspect they'll expand the hours of voting and report hours later than usual.
So your theory is that this thread consists of you, Kehoskie, and one Obama supporter posting under multiple identities?
Sounds about as likely as anything else you've posted here.
The networks would go apeshit.
What could happen is a low turnout. Obama still carries both states easily, but his national popular vote total takes a hit, leading to Repub cries of illegitimate.
Really makes things clear.
I'll take your point that most elections aren't razor thin, but I was responding to the idea that elections used to be gentler. The opposite. Every opponent was the bastard child of a prostitute who planned to defecate, literally, on the Constitution.
I think it makes sense to think of four big eras:
1) Nobody votes but people with wigs--founding to roughly 1820--these elections can be amazingly close (1800) and very bitter but aren't always stirring up the populace. Though they surely can as in the Revolution of 1800 talk and a leading historian has renamed The Era of Good Feelings the Era of Bad Feelings
2) Expanding the vote, expanding conflict--1824ish (it varies by state so you can say this isn't really in place in 1812 but clearly is by 1828-1832) when every election is an apocalypse. First white men without property, then black men. Not all are close but all are amazingly bitter. Most elections are literally bloodbaths and mob warfare. You have to fight your way to the polls.
3) Taking back the vote, enforcing calm--from 1896 to 1968, basically. We think of disfranchisement in the South but nationwide the vote is reduced 1/3 as states push more restrictive laws. The US goes from the highest-turnout democracy to one of the lower-turnout democracies. This produces by the 1940s-1950s the consensus view that people take as "normal" but was actually just a small phase of American democracy. And even then it wasn't always so nice--the Red Scare. Not to mention for the people excluded. But presidential elections were usually restrained.
4) Opening the vote, opening the floodgates. 1968-present. Expanding the vote first back to black Southerners then to 18 year olds. And expanding conflict.
It's hard to figure out exactly how women's enfranchisement changed things and exactly when, since the presumption for the first decade or so is that women are voting with their husbands, and since women were publicly active for decades before the 19th century.
Anyway, democracy is conflict. It doesn't produce consensus; it doesn't produce technocratic solutions. It produces conflict, the same way a football contest does. And it creates a race to 51% that will often produce close elections but produces enormous productions of bitterness even when it doesn't.
The hard part is to make sure that the conflict it produces isn't literally war, which is a common path of democracies and which we have mostly--with one big exception!--avoided, with 1-2 other near misses.
But where we are seems to me to be very much in line with where we have been.
I'm in the same boat here in the northern burbs of NYC - we get almost no political ads, so I almost look forward to Linda offering change we can believe in.
I know. If that happens, they might resort to lockstep opposition to his entire agenda or something.
Actually, should Obama win, I fully expect his second term to feature at least rumblings of impeachment over some nonsense or other, provided the R's continue to hold the House.
EDIT: Nah, can't be right. McMahon's Linda's married name. Congrats on getting me to fall for it (pre-coffee :-) ).
Change? Shite, with her wealth, she should be offering C-notes.
It wouldn't be shocking if folks like Dan, or Dayn, or Neyer - actual personalities with skin in the game when it comes to name recognition - had secondary accounts for posting snark or in off-topic threads they'd prefer not to have associated to their professional reputations.
There's a reasonable chance that the next congress will seat 20+ female Senators, one of which may very well be the nation's first openly gay/lesbian congress-critter.
Given an Obama win on Tuesday, I'd say there's a 50/50 chance that the Gooper House tries to impeach over "Benghazi-gate." Of course, given an electorate that reelects Obama you have to project a 53/47 Dem majority in the Senate at least, so it's not like impeachment would net a removal from office. But the GOP House is a coin flip chance of doing it just to score the ability to say "Obama was impeached" in the 2016 election cycle.
I thought about going with a wrestling reference, but I figured Ed was more plausible than Vince for a Senate general election candidate.
Yup, Atlanta. Still pissed about T-SPLOST miserably failing.
I've always wondered about people who DO use second accounts, if it's worth the effort.
Having to log in and out all the time, having to remember which account said what, and who replied to whom...
It would be too much of a hassle for someone as lazy as me.
Pretty much my thoughts. I was gonna mention the likely Dem Senate, but when Clinton was impeached by the GOP-held Senate they still didn't have anywhere near the 2/3 majority they needed to remove him from office (no Dems voted guilty). Didn't stop the House from doing its thing.
I agree "Benghazi-gate" is the most likely "basis"...
Either that or a Anthony Perkins "Psycho" character.
I've always wondered about people who DO use second accounts, if it's worth the effort.
Having to log in and out all the time, having to remember which account said what, and who replied to whom...
It would be too much of a hassle for someone as lazy as me.
It's hard to tell for sure, since Joe snarks at every poll that shows Obama ahead, but OTOH he's refused odds as high as 3 to 1 on betting sites like Intrade. But OTOOH, I'm sure he'll have something to say about Nate Silver's latest post:
Nov. 2: For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased
He then goes on to say this:
And as I'm sure Joe knows, Nate's now got Obama's chances of re-election at 83.7%, so that'll keep him busy for awhile.
*slow clap*
We've actually met in person at a Camden Yards meetup, but maybe it was Joe in disguise. I'm a very trusting kinda guy.
Canadian humour.
Not saying they should do it. Just that those are actual issues that, if the President could be shown to be directly involved in covering up, would matter a lot more than what Clinton was impeached for.
I also don't think they will. Surely they learned their lesson last time. Right?
I've always wondered about people who DO use third accounts, if it's worth the effort.
Having to log in and out all the time, having to remember which account said what, and who replied to whom...
It would be too much of a hassle for someone as lazy as me.
You're a funny guy, bunyon.
Eastern sunrises are less predictable than Republican overreach.
Did you hear about the new drink, called "The Sandy"?
It's a watered down Manhattan.
Thanks, I'm here all week.
I guess Democrats are glad that Gore wasn't President during 9/11 or else he'd be sitting in a jail somewhere right now.
IF - IF - there was, then that is the sort of topic and behavior that I think should be the basis for impeachment. Malfeasance in the duties of president. Not ordinary citizen-like crimes.
As a fellow Canadian, I could tell.
He's right. Price fixing is stupid and detrimental to solving a problem.
What exactly was it that Obama did that was impeachable?
I think pulling off a collectively-authored persona would be the more impressive accomplishment.
I have three accounts. No sock puppets; the other two accounts are used in ways similar to the Bearded Wizard from old Primer, with no real content produced nor attempted. This account, at least it's attempted.
I'm not. I'm saying that if the stuff those folks are saying happened, he should be impeached. I don't think they did happen though. Just that it is a weighty and serious allegation (and, hence, I think it shoud be gotten to the bottom of - once someone accuses the president of something like that, someone has to go down, either the president or the accusers).
The general idea I have of the accusation is that the Obama administration knew of plans to attack and knew the attack was underway hours before the ambassador fell and then, during the attack ordered units that could help to stand down and, afterward, ordered folks in the know not to talk.
I DO NOT think this is what happened. But, if it did, then, yes, I think he should be impeached. It is exactly the sort of thing one should impeach a president for - unlike lying about sex.
I also think, if any actual officials make this accusation and can't back it up or are shown to be making it up, they should be impeached.
What exactly was it that Obama did that was impeachable?
Hey, what do the merits have to do with it? (FTR, I agree with you.)
Thanks, I'm here all week.
Awful though it is to admit, I laughed.
Not snark, question: $25 per gallon gas solves which problem in NJ at the moment?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main